We are not gods. We're human beings. We are meat, bone, and will. If you set unreasonable standards for us in this universe... you will only kill us all if we try to meet them.
If you want to destroy yourself... do it. I will stay alive. If that means strapping some rats to a board and torturing them to learn secrets that will keep people I love alive. So be it. But I won't eat the sin for that alone. Anyone that benifits from the act eats the sin with me. Which means you're no less damned then me.
You have no grounds to claim moral or ethical superiority unless you're willing to pay something for your convictions. It's very easy to say something is wrong. It's another to actually suffer for your beliefs.
Would you let your mother die to save the lives of a thousand rats? Not even one rat. A thousand rats or your mother's life. Or if you like... your wife's life... you child's life.
Who lives... the rats or your first born son? Pay the piper or close your mouth.
""Another alternative is to not use neither humans or animal models and to accept a slowing of medical progress."" No, the alternative would be burning everything we've learned about medicine in the last 4000 years.
How much did we learn by disturbing the dead? Dissecting human remains was where our basic knowledge of human anatomy came from. This was considered by most to be a violation of the corpse.
You have some choices.
1. You can disavow all modern medicine and if you get sick simply suffer and hope to get better on your own. 2. You can be a hypocrite and criticize it while using it. This is what most do that attack the modern world. Evil when they don't need it and suddenly acceptable when they do. 3. You can moderate your position to take into consideration what is reasonable in the real world.
Those are your choices. I'm assuming you're going with option two. I find that unfortunate but there is no law against being a hypocrite.
""This sounds like some fallacious appeal to popularity or tradition. Neither popularity or tradition make something right."" Not really. It's an appeal to reason. Everything you have had a price. Your forefathers paid it. If you find that price to be unacceptable then return what they took.
You could say that you had no control over that and you'd instead like to simply not do it in the future. Fine. Does that mean you'll refuse all NEW medical care developed through animal testing?
Point blank... Would you DIE to honor this pact? Because this is life and death. We spend the lives of little furry rats to buy life for humans. It is the calculation.
And your progress without animal testing won't be slowed. It will stop. You can't do the experiment without a test subject. Some doctors have experimented on themselves. We could do that.
Will you be my guinea pig? If you say no and won't accept research derived from animal testing then you will get no new treatment. You'll get homeopathy, a warm hand to hold while you die, and a comfy pillow.
I love my family and myself too much to accept that. I will pay the price. And if that makes me a bad person. So be it.
""So what?"" I'd rather my whole society not win the darwin awards.
If you want to go off to the woods and live like an animal that is your business. I won't trouble you. Look at the Amish. We leave them alone.
But if I have any say in it, my society will survive. If you want to die. Die. I believe in the living.
You drink the same water. Eat the same food. Consume the same energy.
This all has a price. You think you're a more moral man then Einstein?
Do you know what the first man to discover fire said?
"Ouch"
There is a price. Ambition has it's price. I'm not saying you should be unethical. I'm saying defense work, animal testing, etc aren't unethical. If our people didn't do it then where would we be? Imagine if the US never had defense contractors or scientists and engineers that contributed to the defense industry. What would the soldier go into battle with? Either a sharped stick and loin cloth. Or more likely we'd be forced to buy weapons from an extra national third party and be beholden to their whim whenever we engaged in war.
And what of testing on animals. What medical breakthroughs were only possible because of animal testing? Ask a biologist, a doctor, or any other stripe of medical expert what our medicine would look like without animal testing.
And why do we do animal testing? Because we consider it more ethical then doing it on people. Which is the alternative. Do you want to be the white rat in cage 1173?
Look, I don't want to attack your world view or suggest you need to do things you disagree with... What I am saying is that you benefit from these things every day of your life. I don't understand how people can look down their nose at these methods while at the same time voluntarily benefiting from the consequences.
Would you torture a lab rat to save your mother's life? I mean... torture it. I'm talking live vivisections... Ideally with no anesthesia. Simply bolt it's limbs to the to a board. This is to save your mother's life. I would. I'd take alternative paths if there were better options. But if it was a straight up choice between torturing a little animal and a human being dying. I choose human life every time.
Am I an evil person for making this calculation? Are the millions of men and women that have made this calcuation for generations evil? You eat evil every day. You drink it. You live in an evil society that is part of an evil civilization then. Because my view on this matter is the default setting for our whole civilization going back thousands of years.
In all our long history I'm not sure if we've ever come across another society that believed as you did... that put these things above their own survival. Consider that that is odd because we've encountered many societies and civilizations. That we've never encountered one with your values implies one of two things. Either human beings are genetically predisposed to not value that view. Or any society that does embrace that view dies out. In the end the second would become the first... so perhaps it's all the same.
In any case, if I were you... and I'm not... I would find a field in which you are challenged and valued. Obviously don't go working for demons, but possibly tone down your standards to something a bit more practical. You are not living in a world of saints. We're simply people. We're not entirely good or bad. We simply are. Try to accept that without holding people to unreasonable standards.
I can't speak to what remote systems outside my control are doing. But we could tolerate 95 percent failure and still operate at 100 percent efficiency.
As I said, we have a great deal of redundancy built into it.
We've seen failure rates as high as 40 percent. Only for an hour or so... It had no effect on us.
It's all about how you design it. It isn't just redundancy. It's compartmentalization. Given systems are going to fail. You need to set it up so they can fail totally without it effecting anything else. The redundancy especially in an enterprise organization is a requirement.
A lot of people looked at the cloud as a way to save a lot of money on computers etc. For mission critical applications that's the wrong attitude. Instead, you should look at it as an opportunity to make the system more robust. Take the per system cost savings and put them towards redundancy. A cloud system is a tenth the cost of an in horse system by our calculations. The cost of the system isn't really important to us since it's nominal in the scheme of things. So we took the savings and put them towards making the system more robust.
We joke that it's military grade at this point though honestly it's probably well beyond anything you see out of the military. We built everything with the assumption that Murphy was not our friend. A cascade failure is only going to happen if you don't have any redundancy. And in that case you deserve the result.
First off, the cloud is especially resistant to DDoS attacks. Ask Amazon. They've designed their systems specifically to reduce the effectiveness of that sort of attack. And as systems become larger they become harder to hit with DDoS attacks. You might as well try to DDoS a root DNS server. Have fun with that.
Furthermore, why would ALL systems route to the same alternate cloud provider? Rather then everyone going from A to B what you'd actually see is some going to B some going to C some going to D-Z. You're not going to see everyone go from one to the next. Which means that rather then load doubling on B you'll see a 5 percent increase in load on B-Z. That's an exaggeration. There will be favorites so some service might get a 15 percent increase while some would see a 1 percent increase. But you're not going to get some perfect domino effect.
It all boils down to how many reasonable IF/THEN subroutines you've built into the system. In the emailing system I have, every time an email is sent a check is done on the email server to make sure it is working. If it isn't it routes to another server in a list. Then there is a check to make sure the email got through. If it didn't there are additional subroutines that go through a trial and error process working through most likely reasons for a failure.
The result is that emails get through. Always. The only thing I don't have control over is the receiver's server. If that stops working there isn't anything I can do about that. But short of that, the email gets through.
Everything is logged. Everything is cross referenced. Everything is added to spreadsheets and turned into lovely little graphs.
The mail gets delivered. Period. No excuses.
And with this cloud computing there are ways to do the same thing. Redundancy and compartmentalization.
You want to make sure that a failure in one system can't cause a failure anywhere else. And you make sure that if any system fails there are backs ups upon backups upon backups.
The system fails if the whole network drops. If any portion of the network starts working again, all jobs can be routed to that portion of the network and everything continues.
I've seen multiple failures before. We had an issue not long ago where many companies decided to do maintenance at the exact same time. Their systems all went off line for a couple hours. The system automatically shifted from unresponsive systems to responsive systems and there was no disruption even though upwards of 40 percent of the systems were not responding.
Women don't dominate these fields because men make them feel unwelcome. Who says the men feel welcome in these fields? The garage innovation that remains the source of much of this talent and change has nothing to do with a culture of acceptance and everything to do with people going off on their own investing their time in these things. Women don't do it. No one stopped them. They could have founded apple or microsoft or google or facebook... they didn't because this doesn't interest them.
And it's also rather silly to say that only women can make products for women. The perfume industry is dominated by men. They make most of it. Men also tend to dominate the fashion industry. On and on. Look at all the products that are mostly consumed by women and you'll find that there are a lot of men not just running it but designing it and providing the creative energy for it.
I don't know why that is... it just is... and before you say it's all about male oppression of women... in the fashion industry we're talking about mostly openly gay men. If you think gay men have an easier chance of it then women... you're high.
Why can't I use several competing cloud systems that do the same thing? What they're talking about here is powerful cloud systems that depend on each other. So if one cloud goes down it causes a chain reaction of failure.
But if every system can use two or three different sources for everything then it doesn't need any specific cloud to be running so long as most of them are running.
Did lack of proper regulation help it happen? Yes. That is correct.
Was that the only thing that caused the problem or even the root cause? no.
The problem was freddie and fannie mae dumping cheap federal credit into the housing market.
Think of it like a drought in a forest. Every year the summer gets hotter and dryer.
Then one day there is a huge forest fire that burns the forest down. Is that the fault of the camper that let his camp fire get out of control? Might have better regulation of campers avoided the fire? Possibly.
But what really caused the fire? How about the giant tinderbox forest?
For over 140 years. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS. US housing prices tracked inflation at a 1:1 ratio. Prices didn't go up or down averaged over the whole market and adjusted for inflation. And we don't claim more then that because we only have good records going back 140 years.
Then exactly around the time the government started pumping money into the home loan market housing prices started to go up faster then inflation. And the rate of acceleration increased PERFECTLY in sync with every major expansion of the home loan programs.
Your government programs caused the problem. They dried the forest and prepared it for the fire. Was wallstreet sloppy and let a camp fire get out of control? Yes. And more then a few of them should go to jail. Is your precious government taking any of them to jail? Apparently not.
So what exactly would more regulation accomplish if they won't even enforce EXISTING regulation. These men broke the law under CURRENT law and the government won't enforce it.
You had better hope the private sector has the answers because it's proven here the government doesn't.
If government had the answers then the leading economies of the world would be the banana republics. After all, those are the countries where the government owns everything.
Less because I think china will do anything meaningful in space exploration at least for a long time to come. But Americans in particular take space more seriously when they think they're competing for it. So this could mean a serious reprioritization of resources in favor of space exploration by the US.
Again, I think it's great the chinese are interested and I wish them the best. I think it's great that more countries are getting involved. I just think in the short term the best news here is that it's likely to get more established countries more involved as well.
systems needs to be compartmentalized or have redundancies built into them.
For example, I have several systems that send automated emails. I've had a problem in the past of given email servers not accepting or sending messages. It's uncommon but it happens and it's not acceptable. These are mission critical systems. They can't fail.
Solution? Redundancy up the wazoo. The way it's set up now so many things would all have to happen at the exact same moment that the only way the system is likely to fail is if we fight world war 3... and lose.
That is how you solve this problem. Don't rely on any one system. Rely on all of them. Once you figure out how to integrate one of them it's typically easier to integrate the rest. The virtues of this approach are manifest. Not just stability but if the services do processing or data retrieval you can cross reference them to find errors in databases or get a more complete data set then exists in any one source.
I mean is google or bing the best search engine? What about both at the same time?
Newspapers aren't eating up old growth trees. The US practices sustainable forestry management. The trees are like crops. You plant them... you wait... you harvest... you plant... Rinse/repeat. Newspapers are no more likely to use up all the trees then eating a cheese burger is likely to use up all the cows.
Now, the amazonian hardwoods is another matter. Those take hundreds of years to grow properly and they're frequently getting clear cut not even for the lumber but just for the land. We see this a lot in africa as well. Slash and burn farming. It's very sad.
These guys are the science equivilent of that sad end of days christian cult. If the world is really near it's tipping point then we're screwed because nothing is changing that fast.
Can we return to environmentalism devoid of the stupid scare tactics? Tell us to save the rain forest or the whales... we liked those campaigns and there is actually something we can do about it. But tell us to stop emitting CO2?
I should think the system should be aware of how distended every button is at any given time. I don't think you'd get a "click" but it could definitely distinguish between a brush and a push.
So you'd nationalize all cellphones? And if you're nationalizing all telephones would VOIP be legal since it competes with traditional phone lines?
And what about media? Certainly you can't trust evil corporate media so you'd need to have government media. The government never lies so they're the best source of information about our dear leader.
And why allow cars? If we've monopolized roads, trains, etc... certainly everyone should move around by government mass transit. That's better for the environment anyway, right?
Airplanes are nationalized as well right? Can't have private airlines competing.
As to Sweden, the situation in sweden is more complicated then you realize. And really using the nordic states again and again as the gold standard for socialist states ignores the demographics.
Nordic countries WORK. They don't sit on their fat asses collecting checks from the government. It's a cultural thing.
That is all your nonsense will ever accomplish. If the US tried to follow your ideas we'd turn into Greece in about five seconds.
Stop and think for a moment if the above attitude would be acceptable in Sweden. They would be horrified. But large segments of the US population find that completely acceptable.
The problems with your whole economic model are many. It really won't work even in Sweden for that much longer since their demographic problems are expanding.
The beauty of capitalism is that it self regulates. Act like jackasses and the system makes you poor. It cuts off resources to non-productive elements of the society. Your idea subsidizes failure. You pay people to do nothing. You pay them to have children that will do nothing. You create whole communities of people that do nothing... that have no aspiration to do anything. They just sit around waiting for the check from the government.
You respect nothing that private enterprise has accomplished and white wash all the failures of big government.
Just about the only things I wouldn't give to private enterprise are the military, police, courts, and legislature. Short of that.... private it all. There's nothing outside of that that isn't handled better by the private sector. And this economic crisis is forcing towns and states to put my statement to the test. So far, the statement is being proven right.
We're seeing declining costs, increasing services, more flexibility, and more accountability.
Beyond that, there are a lot of things you don't even need to pay people to do. Make a government job and government unions squeeze out volunteers. A good example of that is public schools. Parents are often very happy to volunteer time to help out. Maybe couch a sports team. Maybe share a skill with students. Playing music? Fixing a car? Programming? Parents volunteering time to teach students extra curricular classes was common 40 years ago. Today its almost unheard of... it's not because parents don't care or don't want to teach these things. The schools have stopped permitting it.
What about taking care of parks? Again, lots of volunteers to pick up litter, plant flowers, etc. Not allowed.
You're siding with the 7 percent that work for the government against the 93 percent that don't.
it isn't public infrastructure... and there are many examples of public infrastructure sucking.
Look at the Mexican telephone company. It's a national monopoly. It's also poor quality and vastly over priced.
If nationalizing things made everything efficient then the Soviet Union would have been a model of economic efficiency. It wasn't. It was a colossal failure.
Millions have died to make this point and you still don't get it. How many million more must die before you understand?
Yes we should not only allow educated immigrates to stay but we should encourage as many to come to the US as wish to come.
That said, the primary reason so much of the US economy needs these immigrants is because they outsourced their lower skilled jobs. With those positions outsourced it harder for domestic labor to get the experience to be useful in higher level jobs.
So I'd say do both. I don't know how to encourage businesses to hire more entry level workers rather then outsourcing them. It's a complex issue. But if they keep doing this our domestic labor force will have to leave the country to get experience in another country before they can come back. It's that or the welfare rolls expand.
The typical american indifferent to political affiliation is not aware of that law. Claiming It is typical of republicans is frankly - stupid. Would it be fair for me to say that you're a typical democrat because you're stupid?
So why not make everything a state monopoly? We can monopolize food the way they have in North Korea. Everyone wins.
Right, comrade?
Anyway, you're clearly a foaming nutbag. Take your medication and don't use heavy machinery.
I can send packages with fedex though. Lots of people do it all the time.
Are they stupid or are you?
Your foaming at the mouth bigotry is intolerable. Broaden your mind or stay out of these subjects... or of course you'll keep coming off like a psychopath.
Public utilities are fine so long as they're not monopolistic.
For example, imagine if the only way you could send letters was the US postal service. Fed Ex and UPS would be illegal.
Sound like a good idea? That's what you keep advocating. Not just public service but domination of something and prohibiting anyone else from competing with it.
The Mexican telephone company is a similar situation. It's a private company but it's got strong government ties much like many of the companies in China. You can't compete with these companies by law. It doesn't matter if you can offer a better service at a lower price. Men with guns will break down your door if you try to compete.
THAT is what you're advocating. It's disgusting.
And what would happen if you got all that power? The government would read everyone's email and snoop on all our packets. Look at how much of that they're already doing and they don't own it yet. Under your idea they'd control the whole system.
Your fanaticism and bigotry doesn't make you a more enlightened person. It makes you smaller.
Slashdot Mirror
Open the box.
Is the cat alive or dead.
F' predicting whether it will be or not. Is it.
Are you a more moral man then Einstein?
Yes or no?
We are not gods. We're human beings. We are meat, bone, and will. If you set unreasonable standards for us in this universe... you will only kill us all if we try to meet them.
If you want to destroy yourself... do it. I will stay alive. If that means strapping some rats to a board and torturing them to learn secrets that will keep people I love alive. So be it. But I won't eat the sin for that alone. Anyone that benifits from the act eats the sin with me. Which means you're no less damned then me.
You have no grounds to claim moral or ethical superiority unless you're willing to pay something for your convictions. It's very easy to say something is wrong. It's another to actually suffer for your beliefs.
Would you let your mother die to save the lives of a thousand rats? Not even one rat. A thousand rats or your mother's life. Or if you like... your wife's life... you child's life.
Who lives... the rats or your first born son? Pay the piper or close your mouth.
""Another alternative is to not use neither humans or animal models and to accept a slowing of medical progress.""
No, the alternative would be burning everything we've learned about medicine in the last 4000 years.
How much did we learn by disturbing the dead? Dissecting human remains was where our basic knowledge of human anatomy came from. This was considered by most to be a violation of the corpse.
You have some choices.
1. You can disavow all modern medicine and if you get sick simply suffer and hope to get better on your own.
2. You can be a hypocrite and criticize it while using it. This is what most do that attack the modern world. Evil when they don't need it and suddenly acceptable when they do.
3. You can moderate your position to take into consideration what is reasonable in the real world.
Those are your choices. I'm assuming you're going with option two. I find that unfortunate but there is no law against being a hypocrite.
""This sounds like some fallacious appeal to popularity or tradition. Neither popularity or tradition make something right.""
Not really. It's an appeal to reason. Everything you have had a price. Your forefathers paid it. If you find that price to be unacceptable then return what they took.
You could say that you had no control over that and you'd instead like to simply not do it in the future. Fine. Does that mean you'll refuse all NEW medical care developed through animal testing?
Point blank... Would you DIE to honor this pact? Because this is life and death. We spend the lives of little furry rats to buy life for humans. It is the calculation.
And your progress without animal testing won't be slowed. It will stop. You can't do the experiment without a test subject. Some doctors have experimented on themselves. We could do that.
Will you be my guinea pig? If you say no and won't accept research derived from animal testing then you will get no new treatment. You'll get homeopathy, a warm hand to hold while you die, and a comfy pillow.
I love my family and myself too much to accept that. I will pay the price. And if that makes me a bad person. So be it.
""So what?""
I'd rather my whole society not win the darwin awards.
If you want to go off to the woods and live like an animal that is your business. I won't trouble you. Look at the Amish. We leave them alone.
But if I have any say in it, my society will survive. If you want to die. Die. I believe in the living.
You drink the same water. Eat the same food. Consume the same energy.
This all has a price. You think you're a more moral man then Einstein?
Do you know what the first man to discover fire said?
"Ouch"
There is a price. Ambition has it's price. I'm not saying you should be unethical. I'm saying defense work, animal testing, etc aren't unethical. If our people didn't do it then where would we be? Imagine if the US never had defense contractors or scientists and engineers that contributed to the defense industry. What would the soldier go into battle with? Either a sharped stick and loin cloth. Or more likely we'd be forced to buy weapons from an extra national third party and be beholden to their whim whenever we engaged in war.
And what of testing on animals. What medical breakthroughs were only possible because of animal testing? Ask a biologist, a doctor, or any other stripe of medical expert what our medicine would look like without animal testing.
And why do we do animal testing? Because we consider it more ethical then doing it on people. Which is the alternative. Do you want to be the white rat in cage 1173?
Look, I don't want to attack your world view or suggest you need to do things you disagree with... What I am saying is that you benefit from these things every day of your life. I don't understand how people can look down their nose at these methods while at the same time voluntarily benefiting from the consequences.
Would you torture a lab rat to save your mother's life? I mean... torture it. I'm talking live vivisections... Ideally with no anesthesia. Simply bolt it's limbs to the to a board. This is to save your mother's life. I would. I'd take alternative paths if there were better options. But if it was a straight up choice between torturing a little animal and a human being dying. I choose human life every time.
Am I an evil person for making this calculation? Are the millions of men and women that have made this calcuation for generations evil? You eat evil every day. You drink it. You live in an evil society that is part of an evil civilization then. Because my view on this matter is the default setting for our whole civilization going back thousands of years.
In all our long history I'm not sure if we've ever come across another society that believed as you did... that put these things above their own survival. Consider that that is odd because we've encountered many societies and civilizations. That we've never encountered one with your values implies one of two things. Either human beings are genetically predisposed to not value that view. Or any society that does embrace that view dies out. In the end the second would become the first... so perhaps it's all the same.
In any case, if I were you... and I'm not... I would find a field in which you are challenged and valued. Obviously don't go working for demons, but possibly tone down your standards to something a bit more practical. You are not living in a world of saints. We're simply people. We're not entirely good or bad. We simply are. Try to accept that without holding people to unreasonable standards.
The anti GMO lobby needs to get with the program. GMO is a reality. You can't oppose it. You can moderate it. But it's happening.
I can't speak to what remote systems outside my control are doing. But we could tolerate 95 percent failure and still operate at 100 percent efficiency.
As I said, we have a great deal of redundancy built into it.
We've seen failure rates as high as 40 percent. Only for an hour or so... It had no effect on us.
It's all about how you design it. It isn't just redundancy. It's compartmentalization. Given systems are going to fail. You need to set it up so they can fail totally without it effecting anything else. The redundancy especially in an enterprise organization is a requirement.
A lot of people looked at the cloud as a way to save a lot of money on computers etc. For mission critical applications that's the wrong attitude. Instead, you should look at it as an opportunity to make the system more robust. Take the per system cost savings and put them towards redundancy. A cloud system is a tenth the cost of an in horse system by our calculations. The cost of the system isn't really important to us since it's nominal in the scheme of things. So we took the savings and put them towards making the system more robust.
We joke that it's military grade at this point though honestly it's probably well beyond anything you see out of the military. We built everything with the assumption that Murphy was not our friend. A cascade failure is only going to happen if you don't have any redundancy. And in that case you deserve the result.
No pity.
Why would a DDoS attack cause a chain reaction?
First off, the cloud is especially resistant to DDoS attacks. Ask Amazon. They've designed their systems specifically to reduce the effectiveness of that sort of attack. And as systems become larger they become harder to hit with DDoS attacks. You might as well try to DDoS a root DNS server. Have fun with that.
Furthermore, why would ALL systems route to the same alternate cloud provider? Rather then everyone going from A to B what you'd actually see is some going to B some going to C some going to D-Z. You're not going to see everyone go from one to the next. Which means that rather then load doubling on B you'll see a 5 percent increase in load on B-Z. That's an exaggeration. There will be favorites so some service might get a 15 percent increase while some would see a 1 percent increase. But you're not going to get some perfect domino effect.
It all boils down to how many reasonable IF/THEN subroutines you've built into the system. In the emailing system I have, every time an email is sent a check is done on the email server to make sure it is working. If it isn't it routes to another server in a list. Then there is a check to make sure the email got through. If it didn't there are additional subroutines that go through a trial and error process working through most likely reasons for a failure.
The result is that emails get through. Always. The only thing I don't have control over is the receiver's server. If that stops working there isn't anything I can do about that. But short of that, the email gets through.
Everything is logged. Everything is cross referenced. Everything is added to spreadsheets and turned into lovely little graphs.
The mail gets delivered. Period. No excuses.
And with this cloud computing there are ways to do the same thing. Redundancy and compartmentalization.
You want to make sure that a failure in one system can't cause a failure anywhere else. And you make sure that if any system fails there are backs ups upon backups upon backups.
The system fails if the whole network drops. If any portion of the network starts working again, all jobs can be routed to that portion of the network and everything continues.
I've seen multiple failures before. We had an issue not long ago where many companies decided to do maintenance at the exact same time. Their systems all went off line for a couple hours. The system automatically shifted from unresponsive systems to responsive systems and there was no disruption even though upwards of 40 percent of the systems were not responding.
This is how you do it.
Women don't dominate these fields because men make them feel unwelcome. Who says the men feel welcome in these fields? The garage innovation that remains the source of much of this talent and change has nothing to do with a culture of acceptance and everything to do with people going off on their own investing their time in these things. Women don't do it. No one stopped them. They could have founded apple or microsoft or google or facebook... they didn't because this doesn't interest them.
And it's also rather silly to say that only women can make products for women. The perfume industry is dominated by men. They make most of it. Men also tend to dominate the fashion industry. On and on. Look at all the products that are mostly consumed by women and you'll find that there are a lot of men not just running it but designing it and providing the creative energy for it.
I don't know why that is... it just is... and before you say it's all about male oppression of women... in the fashion industry we're talking about mostly openly gay men. If you think gay men have an easier chance of it then women... you're high.
Why can't I use several competing cloud systems that do the same thing? What they're talking about here is powerful cloud systems that depend on each other. So if one cloud goes down it causes a chain reaction of failure.
But if every system can use two or three different sources for everything then it doesn't need any specific cloud to be running so long as most of them are running.
Hmmm... it's more complicated then that.
Did lack of proper regulation help it happen? Yes. That is correct.
Was that the only thing that caused the problem or even the root cause? no.
The problem was freddie and fannie mae dumping cheap federal credit into the housing market.
Think of it like a drought in a forest. Every year the summer gets hotter and dryer.
Then one day there is a huge forest fire that burns the forest down. Is that the fault of the camper that let his camp fire get out of control? Might have better regulation of campers avoided the fire? Possibly.
But what really caused the fire? How about the giant tinderbox forest?
For over 140 years. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS. US housing prices tracked inflation at a 1:1 ratio. Prices didn't go up or down averaged over the whole market and adjusted for inflation. And we don't claim more then that because we only have good records going back 140 years.
Then exactly around the time the government started pumping money into the home loan market housing prices started to go up faster then inflation. And the rate of acceleration increased PERFECTLY in sync with every major expansion of the home loan programs.
Your government programs caused the problem. They dried the forest and prepared it for the fire. Was wallstreet sloppy and let a camp fire get out of control? Yes. And more then a few of them should go to jail. Is your precious government taking any of them to jail? Apparently not.
So what exactly would more regulation accomplish if they won't even enforce EXISTING regulation. These men broke the law under CURRENT law and the government won't enforce it.
You had better hope the private sector has the answers because it's proven here the government doesn't.
If government had the answers then the leading economies of the world would be the banana republics. After all, those are the countries where the government owns everything.
Learn.
Less because I think china will do anything meaningful in space exploration at least for a long time to come. But Americans in particular take space more seriously when they think they're competing for it. So this could mean a serious reprioritization of resources in favor of space exploration by the US.
Again, I think it's great the chinese are interested and I wish them the best. I think it's great that more countries are getting involved. I just think in the short term the best news here is that it's likely to get more established countries more involved as well.
systems needs to be compartmentalized or have redundancies built into them.
For example, I have several systems that send automated emails. I've had a problem in the past of given email servers not accepting or sending messages. It's uncommon but it happens and it's not acceptable. These are mission critical systems. They can't fail.
Solution? Redundancy up the wazoo. The way it's set up now so many things would all have to happen at the exact same moment that the only way the system is likely to fail is if we fight world war 3... and lose.
That is how you solve this problem. Don't rely on any one system. Rely on all of them. Once you figure out how to integrate one of them it's typically easier to integrate the rest. The virtues of this approach are manifest. Not just stability but if the services do processing or data retrieval you can cross reference them to find errors in databases or get a more complete data set then exists in any one source.
I mean is google or bing the best search engine? What about both at the same time?
Newspapers aren't eating up old growth trees. The US practices sustainable forestry management. The trees are like crops. You plant them... you wait... you harvest... you plant... Rinse/repeat. Newspapers are no more likely to use up all the trees then eating a cheese burger is likely to use up all the cows.
Now, the amazonian hardwoods is another matter. Those take hundreds of years to grow properly and they're frequently getting clear cut not even for the lumber but just for the land. We see this a lot in africa as well. Slash and burn farming. It's very sad.
These guys are the science equivilent of that sad end of days christian cult. If the world is really near it's tipping point then we're screwed because nothing is changing that fast.
Can we return to environmentalism devoid of the stupid scare tactics? Tell us to save the rain forest or the whales... we liked those campaigns and there is actually something we can do about it. But tell us to stop emitting CO2?
*holds breath*
*turns blue*
*starts panicking*
*passes out and hits the floor.*
I should think the system should be aware of how distended every button is at any given time. I don't think you'd get a "click" but it could definitely distinguish between a brush and a push.
So you'd nationalize all cellphones? And if you're nationalizing all telephones would VOIP be legal since it competes with traditional phone lines?
And what about media? Certainly you can't trust evil corporate media so you'd need to have government media. The government never lies so they're the best source of information about our dear leader.
And why allow cars? If we've monopolized roads, trains, etc... certainly everyone should move around by government mass transit. That's better for the environment anyway, right?
Airplanes are nationalized as well right? Can't have private airlines competing.
As to Sweden, the situation in sweden is more complicated then you realize. And really using the nordic states again and again as the gold standard for socialist states ignores the demographics.
Nordic countries WORK. They don't sit on their fat asses collecting checks from the government. It's a cultural thing.
It will never work in the US... why? This is why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
That is all your nonsense will ever accomplish. If the US tried to follow your ideas we'd turn into Greece in about five seconds.
Stop and think for a moment if the above attitude would be acceptable in Sweden. They would be horrified. But large segments of the US population find that completely acceptable.
The problems with your whole economic model are many. It really won't work even in Sweden for that much longer since their demographic problems are expanding.
The beauty of capitalism is that it self regulates. Act like jackasses and the system makes you poor. It cuts off resources to non-productive elements of the society. Your idea subsidizes failure. You pay people to do nothing. You pay them to have children that will do nothing. You create whole communities of people that do nothing... that have no aspiration to do anything. They just sit around waiting for the check from the government.
You respect nothing that private enterprise has accomplished and white wash all the failures of big government.
Just about the only things I wouldn't give to private enterprise are the military, police, courts, and legislature. Short of that.... private it all. There's nothing outside of that that isn't handled better by the private sector. And this economic crisis is forcing towns and states to put my statement to the test. So far, the statement is being proven right.
We're seeing declining costs, increasing services, more flexibility, and more accountability.
Beyond that, there are a lot of things you don't even need to pay people to do. Make a government job and government unions squeeze out volunteers. A good example of that is public schools. Parents are often very happy to volunteer time to help out. Maybe couch a sports team. Maybe share a skill with students. Playing music? Fixing a car? Programming? Parents volunteering time to teach students extra curricular classes was common 40 years ago. Today its almost unheard of... it's not because parents don't care or don't want to teach these things. The schools have stopped permitting it.
What about taking care of parks? Again, lots of volunteers to pick up litter, plant flowers, etc. Not allowed.
You're siding with the 7 percent that work for the government against the 93 percent that don't.
How do you like them apples?
it isn't public infrastructure... and there are many examples of public infrastructure sucking.
Look at the Mexican telephone company. It's a national monopoly. It's also poor quality and vastly over priced.
If nationalizing things made everything efficient then the Soviet Union would have been a model of economic efficiency. It wasn't. It was a colossal failure.
Millions have died to make this point and you still don't get it. How many million more must die before you understand?
Yes we should not only allow educated immigrates to stay but we should encourage as many to come to the US as wish to come.
That said, the primary reason so much of the US economy needs these immigrants is because they outsourced their lower skilled jobs. With those positions outsourced it harder for domestic labor to get the experience to be useful in higher level jobs.
So I'd say do both. I don't know how to encourage businesses to hire more entry level workers rather then outsourcing them. It's a complex issue. But if they keep doing this our domestic labor force will have to leave the country to get experience in another country before they can come back. It's that or the welfare rolls expand.
The typical american indifferent to political affiliation is not aware of that law. Claiming It is typical of republicans is frankly - stupid. Would it be fair for me to say that you're a typical democrat because you're stupid?
So why not make everything a state monopoly? We can monopolize food the way they have in North Korea. Everyone wins.
Right, comrade?
Anyway, you're clearly a foaming nutbag. Take your medication and don't use heavy machinery.
Good day, sir.
Denying them? I wasn't aware of them.
Right there we know why federal express always costs more. They're required to be more expensive by law.
You like that? You like monopolies that force everyone out of business and make things more expensive?
You're an idiot.
Good day, sir.
I can send letters by fed ex. Why do you think I can't?
Fedex has envelopes you can ship things with...
it's not over subscription that is the problem. It's the lack of competition.
We have a country many times the size of yours and fewer cable companies.
Why do we have fewer? No one else is allowed to run cable.
It's a regional monopoly.
I can send packages with fedex though. Lots of people do it all the time.
Are they stupid or are you?
Your foaming at the mouth bigotry is intolerable. Broaden your mind or stay out of these subjects... or of course you'll keep coming off like a psychopath.
Nope... it's a much more complex position.
Public utilities are fine so long as they're not monopolistic.
For example, imagine if the only way you could send letters was the US postal service. Fed Ex and UPS would be illegal.
Sound like a good idea? That's what you keep advocating. Not just public service but domination of something and prohibiting anyone else from competing with it.
The Mexican telephone company is a similar situation. It's a private company but it's got strong government ties much like many of the companies in China. You can't compete with these companies by law. It doesn't matter if you can offer a better service at a lower price. Men with guns will break down your door if you try to compete.
THAT is what you're advocating. It's disgusting.
And what would happen if you got all that power? The government would read everyone's email and snoop on all our packets. Look at how much of that they're already doing and they don't own it yet. Under your idea they'd control the whole system.
Your fanaticism and bigotry doesn't make you a more enlightened person. It makes you smaller.
again, that's what airlock accidents are for...